[Dionysios]

What evidence do you have that thought comes from the brain? Which parts, specifically, do those thoughts come from?

A good and interesting question, although I think that what precisely determines the right to life is more the central issue than whether a being has a brain or is able to think or not.

As seems implied by those above, I do believe that an individual which can think is not essentially different from us who have been born.

To answer the initial question, I do not believe that a brain is absolutely necessary for thought. The basis of my reasoning is that man is composed of two parts: body and soul. Life is not extant without the soul. That does not mean that the body should not be respected. Death occurs when the soul exits the body, and most of us respect the dead.  I disagree with the notion that infants in the first part of pregnancy do not merit the rights and respect of the rest of us.

As to the brain, the soul is what actually thinks. According to both Plato and John Chrysostom the soul is composed of three parts: intellect, ethos, and emotions. (Freud agrees with this although he calls them different names.)  The brain is apparently the instrument through which the soul thinks.  The same applies to sight and eyes. The soul sees. The eyes are the physical instrument through which the soul sees. And this pertains to every organ of the body.

I am not denying the things taught in anatomy and physiology courses about brain function. I just believe many of these omit the most important dimension of the process.

[Rushy]

It is a simple process of elimination.  It is the only organ, that when it ceases functioning, mental activity ceases.

I can name a great many organs that when damaged cause your mental faculties to submit. Your heart, for example, is fairly important to the process.

Vague or not, it satisfies your question.

In the same vein that "atoms" would have also satisfied it. It was a purposeful aversion of digging deeper into the subject.

[Dionysios]

It is the goal of cultural Marxists to tell women that child bearing is an inconvenience that should be washed away. It lowers the national birthrate and then they can justify the importation of millions of third world, uneducated peasants that have very low wage and labor standards.

I am against abortion, but I do not concur with these statements. Aside from assuming that immigrants have low work standards, the notion that abortion is a Marxist phenomenon does not make sense.  It's a Malthusian (aka right wing) population control strategy consistent with Nazism. Unfortunately, abortion has been become popular with large segments of the left since about the time Paul Erlich advocated it as a means of population control in the 1960's.  Rushy is closer to the truth when he indicated the elite push it.

It's worth noting that communist China under Mao never had a one child policy which was not adopted until 1979 when the comparatively fascist Deng Xiaopeng had taken over.

[Dionysios]

As to the moment life begins, I believe it's always there.

I have read that official catholic doctrine states that God sovereignly creates a human soul precisely at the moment of conception. While I agree with their anti-abortionist position (and respect catholics), my personal opinion is that doctrine is slightly juvenile.

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus taught that humans receive our souls from our parents just as we receive our bodies through them. The soul is always present. For anyone to speculate that souls or thought or the right to life begins at any time after conception is more ridiculous and reprehensible as any catholic doctrine as its being used as a blanket defense for murder.

My suspicion is that any individual or organization who advocates abortion on behalf of women's rights while mostly ignoring the child has major flaws, likely not have the ethics it claims, and therefore deserving of investigation.

The fact that abortion is legal in the U.S. is one of many manifestations of social fascism.

[xasop]

We don't have evidence that any animal other than ourselves "wants" to do anything, yet we attribute that to other human beings and some animals regardless. Assuming you don't adhere to solipsism, your line of reasoning doesn't make any sense.

That's simply incorrect. Animals are capable of responding to sensory inputs with a clear preference for one alternative over another. For example, a cat will run away from a dog, which is evidence that it does not want to get bitten.

Individual cells have no such autonomy.

Tom did not base his claim on the idea of there being a hypothetical being in the future. Do not put words in his mouth just to form your own baseless arguments.

Actually, he did:

How many foster children can you find who would say "I would rather have been an abortion!" Kids find a way to enjoy life, even if they are a foster child. Even if they happened to be one of those unfortunate kids who were abused, they would likely get past that at some point and enjoy life. Is some hypothetical physical or sexual abuse really worth a death sentence?

It is not certain that an embryo will develop into a foster child, just as it is not certain that a sperm will fertilise an ovum to develop an embryo. Tom's argument is based on hypothetical future outcomes.

As to the moment life begins, I believe it's always there.

There is no "moment life begins"; life is continuous from parent to child. A sperm is just as alive as a newborn baby, which is just as alive as an apple tree. If you have ever picked an apple, you have destroyed life in precisely the same way as an abortion practitioner.

This is a common line of reasoning among anti-abortionists, who try to boil down the issue to being about the preservation of life. It is not about life unless you are also campaigning against the harvesting of crops. It is about a sapient human being, and the question you should ask is at what point sapience begins, not what point life begins.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking pro-lifers here exclusively. Pro-choicers also like to try to make the issue more black and white than it appears, by boiling the subject down to women's rights and simply ignoring the pro-life argument.

Both sides need to realise that it is not a black and white issue, but a matter of degrees, for which one extreme would ban birth control and the other would legalise killing babies. Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

[Rushy]

That's simply incorrect. Animals are capable of responding to sensory inputs with a clear preference for one alternative over another. For example, a cat will run away from a dog, which is evidence that it does not want to get bitten.

Individual cells have no such autonomy.

If that is evidence of thought in animals, then surely this:



is evidence that even single celled organisms do not want to get eaten. Thus, we can conclude that single cell organisms do, in fact, have such autonomy as to make decisions based on their own well being.

It is not certain that an embryo will develop into a foster child, just as it is not certain that a sperm will fertilise an ovum to develop an embryo. Tom's argument is based on hypothetical future outcomes.

Actually, it is not. Perhaps you should read Tom's post again, since clearly he is arguing against the usage of hypothetical outcomes, not for them.

[Blanko]

It doesn't matter if abortion is morally bad, it's still necessary because it's the most effective method of population control. Unwanted children are statistically a massive burden to society.

[Rushy]

It doesn't matter if abortion is morally bad, it's still necessary because it's the most effective method of population control. Unwanted children are statistically a massive burden to society.

Tampering with the birthrate of a society by cultivating the idea of children being a burden will only result in the ultimate dissolution of the culture that spawned the idea.

[Lord Dave]

It doesn't matter if abortion is morally bad, it's still necessary because it's the most effective method of population control. Unwanted children are statistically a massive burden to society.

Tampering with the birthrate of a society by cultivating the idea of children being a burden will only result in the ultimate dissolution of the culture that spawned the idea.

Except children ARE a burden.  They require a tremendous amount of care for many years.  This care is often stressful and expensive.  The cost of education alone can be over $10,000 per year.

This does not mean, however, that they aren't worth it.  Carrying a bag of groceries home is a burden, but you'll have food if you do.

[garygreen]

brain injuries

Merely evidence that physical injury affects one mentally, not evidence that from the brain arises thought.

incorrect.  traumatic brain injuries often affect cognition in specific and repeatable ways.  other injuries do not.  this is how we first started learning about which parts of the brain are involved with particular cognitive abilities, like recalling a memory.  also lobotomy. 

How does a neuron think?

networks of neurons respond to stimuli from your sensory organs.  the precise mechanism behind consciousness is not fully-understood, but the connection between neurons and cognition is beyond dispute.

I can name a great many organs that when damaged cause your mental faculties to submit. Your heart, for example, is fairly important to the process.

incorrect.  the heart contributes nothing to cognition.  1 2

also no one disagrees that death from any cause has a debilitating effect on cognition.  duh.

i assume you're trolling, yes?

[xasop]

If that is evidence of thought in animals, then surely this:



is evidence that even single celled organisms do not want to get eaten. Thus, we can conclude that single cell organisms do, in fact, have such autonomy as to make decisions based on their own well being.

It might be interpreted that way by someone uninitiated in the study of fluid mechanics. To a more sophisticated eye, this is simply evidence for well-established laws of physics which permit one object to push another aside as it moves.

Actually, it is not. Perhaps you should read Tom's post again, since clearly he is arguing against the usage of hypothetical outcomes, not for them.

Oh, you are correct. My mistake. So Tom's argument rests solely on his unsubstantiated claim that individual cells "want" anything.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Whether or not the foetus/ zygote/ egg/ sperm wants life is irrelevant. The question is whether one has bodily autonomy, that is, do you have the right to decide what happens in your own body?

Even if a foetus was 100% cognisant and able to debate the finer details of Aristotelian philosophy I would still argue that the right to abortion  be defended. Nobody has the right to force themselves upon your body without your consent, even if withdrawing that access results in their death.

[Tom Bishop]

Whether or not the foetus/ zygote/ egg/ sperm wants life is irrelevant. The question is whether one has bodily autonomy, that is, do you have the right to decide what happens in your own body?

Even if a foetus was 100% cognisant and able to debate the finer details of Aristotelian philosophy I would still argue that the right to abortion  be defended. Nobody has the right to force themselves upon your body without your consent, even if withdrawing that access results in their death.

That is a reprehensible argument. You are basically arguing that a woman has the right to kill a baby one day before birth.

The baby inside her is a living being as well. There are two people here, not just one. You are arguing that the termination of a baby, which wants to live, it perfectly fine, because it might temporarily inconvenience the mother. That is terrible. How could you favor termination of life over temporary inconvenience?

[Blanko]

Whether or not the foetus/ zygote/ egg/ sperm wants life is irrelevant. The question is whether one has bodily autonomy, that is, do you have the right to decide what happens in your own body?

Even if a foetus was 100% cognisant and able to debate the finer details of Aristotelian philosophy I would still argue that the right to abortion  be defended. Nobody has the right to force themselves upon your body without your consent, even if withdrawing that access results in their death.

That is a reprehensible argument. You are basically arguing that a woman has the right to kill a baby one day before birth.

The baby inside her is a living being as well. There are two people here, not just one. You are arguing that the termination of a baby, which wants to live, it perfectly fine, because it might temporarily inconvenience the mother. That is terrible. How could you favor termination of life over temporary inconvenience?

Do you think it's reprehensible to use lethal force on a dangerous intruder in your home?

[DuckDodgers]

One day prior to due date, the baby can survive outside of the mother.  There is a reason the current ban in the US is set at 24 weeks.  This is the point where it statistically becomes a coin toss on whether the baby will survive outside the womb and therefore is granted protection.

[Tom Bishop]

Do you think it's reprehensible to use lethal force on a dangerous intruder in your home?

The baby is not an intruder. Its her child. A mother cannot go crazy and throw her 13 year old child onto the street without severe legal repercussions. Why should she have limitless rights over a baby whose home is inside of her?

One day prior to due date, the baby can survive outside of the mother.  There is a reason the current ban in the US is set at 24 weeks.  This is the point where it statistically becomes a coin toss on whether the baby will survive outside the womb and therefore is granted protection.

If you rip a 20 week old baby out of the womb it will suffer. It will gasp for air and die. That is murder of a living being.

What is the purpose of this killing? The purpose is that a baby was killed so the mother won't have to suffer temporary inconvenience for some number of months until the baby can be born and adopted into a loving home. That is unjustifiable and wrong.

The baby should have a right to live and be adopted by parents who will love it. The mother should be compelled to go through with the pregnancy, just as a landlord is compelled to give someone time to vacate in an eviction. It was decided that temporary inconvenience to the landlord does not outweigh kicking someone on the streets with nowhere to live. Likewise, the temporary inconvenience of the mother should not outweigh the termination of a baby's life and wish to live.

Are you really defending mothers who want to kill their babies because they see them as an inconvenience and a distraction? Shame on you.

[Rama Set]

Do you think it's reprehensible to use lethal force on a dangerous intruder in your home?

The baby is not an intruder. Its her child. A mother cannot go crazy and throw her 13 year old child onto the street without severe legal repercussions. Why should she have limitless rights over a baby whose home is inside of her?

A mother has rights over her body, not over the baby. As duck dodger pointed out these rights are limited once the baby can survive without her.

One day prior to due date, the baby can survive outside of the mother.  There is a reason the current ban in the US is set at 24 weeks.  This is the point where it statistically becomes a coin toss on whether the baby will survive outside the womb and therefore is granted protection.

If you rip a 20 week old baby out of the womb it will suffer. It will gasp for air and die. That is murder of a living being.

No, murder is defined as unlawful killing, it has nothing to do with gasping for air. What do you hope to achieve by appealing to the awfulness of dead babies?

What is the purpose of this killing? The purpose is that a baby was killed so the mother won't have to suffer temporary inconvenience for some number of months until the baby can be born and adopted into a loving home. That is unjustifiable and wrong.

Not all abortions are for this reason. If you cannot acknowledge that the issue is more complicated then what is the point?

The mother should be compelled to go through with the pregnancy, just as a landlord is compelled to give someone time to vacate in an eviction. It was decided that temporary inconvenience to the landlord does not outweigh kicking someone on the streets with nowhere to live. Likewise, the temporary inconvenience of the mother should not outweigh the termination of a baby's life and wish to live.

What about when it's nervous system is undeveloped and is incapable of sentience?

Are you really defending mothers who want to kill their babies because they see them as an inconvenience and a distraction? Shame on you.

People explaining how you are misrepresenting the abortion laws is different than supporting them.

[Tom Bishop]

A mother has rights over her body, not over the baby. As duck dodger pointed out these rights are limited once the baby can survive without her.

Why should a woman have the right to evict a baby inside of her, but I don't have the right to evict someone from my property without giving them an appropriate time to leave? Don't we owe it to these defenseless babies to also give them time to leave their home?

Women don't have authority over their bodies. Suicide is illegal in many places. Drugs are illegal. Incest is illegal. Vaccines are mandatory. There are many limits on a woman's body. It is ridiculous to claim that a woman has authority over her body when there are hundreds, probably thousands, of laws which say that is not the case.

What about when it's nervous system is undeveloped and is incapable of sentience?

From the moment of conception the level of complexity which occurs is mind boggling. Zygote stage cells try to avoid foreign attackers such as viruses and bacteria. Fetuses in early pregnancies are capable enough to try and avoid the prongs and tubes abortion doctors attack them with. The nervous system develops very fast, and the ability to react to stimulus begins immediately. There no doubt that a baby in the womb has sentience - the ability to feel, perceive, and experience. That quality is apparent at the earliest stage.

Unborn babies know enough to try to avoid destruction. Don't kid yourself. They can feel. They are alive. Is a fetus not in pain when the abortion doctor rips it apart limb by limb while in the womb?

These babies cannot be dehumanized. A life cannot be denied.  Saying that abortion is okay because the baby is not fully grown is practically the same as saying that it is okay to kill a 1 year old baby because it is not yet a man. There is no slippery slope. It's a obvious attempt at justifying an immoral act.

[Rushy]

incorrect.  traumatic brain injuries often affect cognition in specific and repeatable ways.  other injuries do not.  this is how we first started learning about which parts of the brain are involved with particular cognitive abilities, like recalling a memory.  also lobotomy. 

Very simple and repeated tasks with generalizations that "this does that". It's no more astute than claiming you understand the human genome by pointing out errors in it. The brain is simply one part of our spiritual machinery. The heart and stomach are just as important.

networks of neurons respond to stimuli from your sensory organs.  the precise mechanism behind consciousness is not fully-understood, but the connection between neurons and cognition is beyond dispute.

In what way, though? If I wanted to build a conscious brain, how would I go about doing so? Which wires go where, so to speak?

the heart contributes nothing to cognition.

This is false, the heart is even more important to cognition than even the brain. You can still live without half a brain, but living with half a heart will give you quite some trouble.

It might be interpreted that way by someone uninitiated in the study of fluid mechanics. To a more sophisticated eye, this is simply evidence for well-established laws of physics which permit one object to push another aside as it moves.

An thoughtful pivot tactic, but a pivot nonetheless. The B-cell is clearly giving chase to a small bacterium which is fleeing. Of course, if you want to use the excuse that they are in a fluid, so too will I excuse your dog and cat analogy by way of them being in a fluid. Unless, of course, you wish me to imagine a scenario in which a dog gives chase to a cat whilst in a vacuum.

Oh, you are correct. My mistake. So Tom's argument rests solely on his unsubstantiated claim that individual cells "want" anything.

You would have to ask Tom for that.

[andruszkow]

Do you think it's reprehensible to use lethal force on a dangerous intruder in your home?

The baby is not an intruder. Its her child. A mother cannot go crazy and throw her 13 year old child onto the street without severe legal repercussions. Why should she have limitless rights over a baby whose home is inside of her?

One day prior to due date, the baby can survive outside of the mother.  There is a reason the current ban in the US is set at 24 weeks.  This is the point where it statistically becomes a coin toss on whether the baby will survive outside the womb and therefore is granted protection.

If you rip a 20 week old baby out of the womb it will suffer. It will gasp for air and die. That is murder of a living being.

What is the purpose of this killing? The purpose is that a baby was killed so the mother won't have to suffer temporary inconvenience for some number of months until the baby can be born and adopted into a loving home. That is unjustifiable and wrong.

The baby should have a right to live and be adopted by parents who will love it. The mother should be compelled to go through with the pregnancy, just as a landlord is compelled to give someone time to vacate in an eviction. It was decided that temporary inconvenience to the landlord does not outweigh kicking someone on the streets with nowhere to live. Likewise, the temporary inconvenience of the mother should not outweigh the termination of a baby's life and wish to live.

Are you really defending mothers who want to kill their babies because they see them as an inconvenience and a distraction? Shame on you.

You didn't answer his question.